Abortion Violates The Unalienable Right To Life?

I disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

If you can nail down when it happened, it didn't happen.

 

Obviously .. shame you can't provide anything to back up your disagreement.

You really didn't write that expecting it to be taken seriously did you?

 

*shrug* Someone can speak their belief as easily as they can recite King Lear.





​

 

You keep saying the parties switched, when did they switch?

 

I did too, but like I said, you just ignore it or don't understand it.

If you can't prove the parties changed, then it didn't happen. You can't even tell us when it happened.

I provided ample proof it didn't happen in this post:

Democrats still have racist ideas

 

Speaking Kin Lear is not speaking their belief.

 

Already answered, you inability to understand that it was not a wham-bam happening is your issue not mine.

 

Nope, it is you who doesn't understand.

already have shown what happened.

Your either/or fallacy is noted and dismissed.

Read it, still does not change the reality that the Democrats & Republicans switched over a period of years.

 

Yeah, but can you narrow it down from a 75 to 100 years time frame because that is a ridiculous idea that it was somewhere between 1865 and 1964 but nobody knows for sure when it happened.

 

Right then, if you can't tell me when they switched, perhaps you can tell me who switched?

If you can't tell me who switched, perhaps you can tell me what policies switched?

 

Why narrow it down, that is the time frame over which it happened, yet again it seems you want a de facto year, month, day, hour, min and second. political shifts simply don't happen like that.

- - - Updated - - -

Read the links already provided.

Perhaps you can explain why so many right-wing racist groups are attracted to the Republican party?

 

*shrug* Speaking King Lear is not reciting Romeo & Juliet.




​

 

Correct. The only "rights" you have are those you can convince other people to let you have.

When the founders said "we hold these truths to be self-evident", I think they KNEW that they were on shaky ground with the word "truth" and proclaimed those truths as "self-evident" because 1) they had no proof for those truths, and 2) that was they way they wanted things based on the philosophy du jour.

 

Or the political shift never happened at all. If you can't demonstrate when it happened, who it happened to, or what policies shifted in those year, then it just didn't happen. I have demonstrated the long history of racism of liberal democrat politicians over the years in this thread:
Democratic Party's record on Race Part II
I have also show the Republican party's support for civil rights from the beginning until now in this thread:
Republican Platforms Support Civil Rights
I have also proven that the there was no switch in this thread:
The Myth of the Southern Strategy
I have yet to see any proof from liberals or democrats that I am wrong.

Name one. There are no right-wing racist groups associated with the republican party.

 

you sound like a teenager when they say if there are no pictures it didn't happen

Anyway this is all off topic, if you have a point to make perhaps you should start a topic on it.

 

Hey PN:

In the last 100 years, how many black people have been elected to powerful Washington positions in the Democratic Party?

I'll help you out - well over 100.

In that same time span, how many blacks were elected to powerful Washington positions in the Republican Party?

You can count them on one hand, with a couple fingers from the other.

Power. Where it's at, baby!

 

If you want to do mental gymnastics to take rights away from people, don't get mad when other people come into power and do the same to you. You set the precedent, yourself.

 

YES! Those who want to take away women's right to abortion should remember that.....

 

Why are so many old threads being resurrected???

 

Anti-Choicers haven't anything new to say???

 

Exactly what rights have been taken away please?

 

You go on for your entire Opening Post about natural rights, or how there are no natural rights, rather.

But the fact is, if the personhood of the fetus has no natural rights, the woman doesn't either. That is, she has no natural right to terminate the pregnancy.

Your entire argument is really not one pertaining to abortion, but really the wider subject of philosophy and ethics, though it may pertain to the Abortion issue to some extent.

To justify abortion, you are striving for an amoralistic system of ethics. Hate to be overly dramatic... but this is not so different from what the Communists and Nazis did to justify the means to their ends.

 

Godwin's Law - you lose.

 

from the standpoint of the discussion of ethics I believe the comparison was actually appropriate here

 

OK, Ya, the Nazis FORCED women to have abortions and FORCED women to give birth , destroying the rights of people to their own bodies...so much LIKE ANTI-CHOICERS wanting to FORCE women to do their bidding ,too...exactly alike...an appropriate comparison.